What is your sitting meditaiton technique?

Yeah, it's almost like calling "driving" a skill. Once you've done it for a long time, you don't have to think about all of the steps it takes just to pull out of the driveway.

Mike talks sometimes about how there's a certain way to pay attention which seems to result in passing through different territory, leading to different results. I think the jhanas arise out of paying a certain kind of mental activity, and the insight stages arise and pass when a different kind of attention is dialed up. Sometimes it seems that the mind just settles into one of these ways of paying attention all on its own, and things just start happening.

There is something worth noting about this. I think some meditators at certain points on their journey start thinking that this insight reality is more real than their default reality. But the fact that one can experiment with different ways of paying attention and discover different state of consciousness raises the question: are any of these ways of seeing the "right" or "real" way?

I'm sure there are a lot of different opinions on this. But, I think the answer can't be a simple 'yes' or 'no'. What it shows us is that all ways of seeing are in some way compounded, arising from conditions. Experience is always mediated by perception, which is as malleable as anything else. And when there is no "real" state, or mode, or way of experiencing, what else can we do but let go?

Thanks for the inspiration, Chris

P.S. I'd love to hear a different opinions about this.

I've been thinking about this, and this is just a ponder. I haven't done jhana stuff (literally in the last few days a friend has coached me, so I've curiously played around a few time trying it). But when you say: "one can experiment with different ways of paying attention and discover
different state of consciousness raises the question: are any of these
ways of seeing the "right" or "real" way?"

I have done a lot of trance work in my past and still do now, working with spirits and so on as well as with different kinds of trance used to access visions and such. In other words many different states of consciousness. Talking about it with a friend who also has extensive meditation experience, we wondered if it doesn't have an impact on deconstructing the sense of a stable, solid, bounded, separate self? Because in these states one can "be" another flavor of personality altogether under the influence of a spirit, speaking, moving, feeling, etc all different than the "regular me."

Just a thought. And probably a little "out there" for this crowd, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

Jackson, I may have a contrasting opinion on your overall post, but I'm not sure yet

First, I definitely relate to the correlation of certain ways of paying attention with certain ways phenomena present. This is exactly what led me to question some of the standard assumptions about how 'reality' is, as often defined in the prag dharma scene, as being artifacts of a certain approach to experience, rather than self-existing layers or strata of mind. Although I think this definitely gets into some complex and murky territory, and in some ways it's simpler to just have a reified map.

Taking the three modes of "how phenomena present" loosely referenced in your post-- the jhannic, the insight-nyanic, and the "default", how would you describe the corresponding modes of paying attention in each case?

And what about changes to the "default" state, whether these changes occur in the context of (pre)conventional (personality) development (from infancy to young adulthood), post-conventional (personality) development, or trans-personal development?

Taking the three modes of "how phenomena present" loosely referenced in your post-- the jhannic, the insight-nyanic, and the "default", how would you describe the corresponding modes of paying attention in each case?

-jake

Great question. The jhanic mode (these are not official terms; just coming up with something so we can talk about them) may result from present-moment awareness focused on stability. The different jhanas seem to happen when the body and mind relax in a particular way, dropping off certain processes as they go along (I think). The insight-stage mode is present-moment awareness as well, but focused more loosely, so as to allow shifting thoughts, emotions, and mental states to come and go in and accepting way, which results in defusion and non-identification. The "default" mode I make reference to is really just one's habitually reinforced mode of experiencing, whatever it is. For many (if not most) it is probably a state of contracted identity in some form or another (more explanation is needed on this; I don't have a good idea of how to start).

And what about changes to the "default" state, whether these changes occur in the context of (pre)conventional (personality) development (from infancy to young adulthood), post-conventional (personality) development, or trans-personal development?

-jake

That gives me lots to think about. No good answers come to mind yet. I'd like to hear more from you or anyone else, though.
It's kind of fun writing about this stuff, because it's all so new for me. Things are wide open

Yes, wide open! And totally fascinating, IMO. I'll consider your considered responses later this weekend when I get a chance On a side note, what is the quality of stability in jhannic attention? I've always had a hard time with this, and have had little interest in jhannic concentration, but I've always been intrigued by this notion of stability. My experience has been that paying attention, I see impermanence at various levels of resolution, and would track degrees of concentration to degrees of resolution on impermanence. After what I suppose was SE, I did notice a sequence of four states of attentional patterning arising seemingly spontaneously when i sat which seemed to correspond with the four jhannas, with increasingly subtle non-material aspects to the panoramic fourth one, although more like vipassana jhannas as they were all vibratey. (Except for the sensations of space and consciousness, which captivated me completely for a few weeks after this, perhaps the only time I can remember something like "solid jhanna").

I'll think more about the developmental aspect in relation to the "default" mode and get back to ya, but suffice to say for now I like your 'habitually reinforced mode of experiencing, whatever that is", and there is an important implication here that the default, so defined, could very well be a trans-personal identification as well, and one could be just as stuck in such a version of "self" as one was in a more solid, personal self-habit

"The jhanic mode (these are not official terms; just coming up with
something so we can talk about them) may result from present-moment
awareness focused on stability. The insight-stage mode is
present-moment awareness as well, but focused more loosely, so as to
allow shifting thoughts, emotions, and mental states to come and go in
and accepting way, which results in defusion and non-identification."

This is interesting. The trance states - at least if I experiment at this moment, as I never thought of analyzing it this way - are often begun with present-moment awareness focused on stability (focused on a visualized, verbal or physical object), but then transition into broad/loose present-moment awareness, allowing the free play of whatever arises (vision, spirit presence). During the latter state, one wants to avoid grasping, editing, or otherwise controlling what's going on, but lightly notes it so as to recall later or speak out loud in real time what is seen/heard/felt. Both states take quite a bit of practice to stabilize.

I have done a lot of trance work in my past and still do now, working with spirits and so on as well as with different kinds of trance used to access visions and such. In other words many different states of consciousness. Talking about it with a friend who also has extensive meditation experience, we wondered if it doesn't have an impact on deconstructing the sense of a stable, solid, bounded, separate self? Because in these states one can "be" another flavor of personality altogether under the influence of a spirit, speaking, moving, feeling, etc all different than the "regular me."



-ona

nice Ona, reminds me of transformation practice in Vajrayana, though slightly different, clearly related. And definitely results in deconstructing the sense of a stable solid bounded separate self. A Dzogchen teacher I really like, who also teaches Vajrayana, who in his professional life is a Gestalt therapist, James Low, gives a nice description somewhere about transformation practice. Paraphrasing, at first it feels like Jake pretending to be Padmasambavha, then as you get better it starts to feel like the default state "jake" is Padmasambavha pretending to be jake, and so on, both identities becoming more tansparent/empty.

I think this is pretty accurate, but I think this mode (default) has, like jhannic mode, a very wide spectrum of experiential qualities. Attention can be narrow or broad. Awareness can be present, as can self-awareness. There may be a "self" process in play, there may not, and there may be a "flow" like process occurring that literally precludes the self-ing processes.

-cmarti

Interesting points, Chris. I think the particularities of one's so-called "default" mode very considerably from person to person, as wells as for each individual person themselves. I suspect that for most people, the mode they live from is reinforced by innumerable contextual variables (bio-psycho-social-spiritual, and more) over their lifetime (or lifetimes, depending on one's view). So, I think that some of these different modes of consciousness between individuals are in the same general vicinity or ballpark. Or, as Ken Wilber might put it, one's conscious center of gravity may rest within a particular wave of the Kosmos.

Actually, now that I think about it, I suspect all of these "modes" we're now talking about here might just be shades of one over-arching awareness. Each starts with a baseline awareness and adds more mind processes, or subtracts them, to get the lenses that we are calling "modes" of attention. That model also fits what I think the awakening process is, which is essentially the slow removal of the usual mind processes we become habituated to using over our developmental years until adulthood.But who knows?

-cmarti

The only issue I have with thinking of a "baseline awareness" is that it may lead to an arranging of states of consciousness topographically. For some reason that is something I'm wishing to avoid. I think it may be that experience itself always has the quality of wakefulness, and that any mode, perspective, or state is a temporary configuration of impermanence in action. It's a subtle difference, and it may or may not be true. It does seem to be helpful for me, though, in that it aids in releasing the desire to dwell in any state or mode, nor even to attempt to shift my center of gravity to a "higher" one through practice.

And thus, I start to sound very much like a Zen-head

"The only issue I
have with thinking of a "baseline awareness" is that it may lead to an
arranging of states of consciousness topographically. For some reason
that is something I'm wishing to avoid. I think it may be that
experience itself always has the quality of wakefulness, and that any
mode, perspective, or state is a temporary configuration of impermanence
in action. It's a subtle difference, and it may or may not be true. It
does seem to be helpful for me, though, in that it aids in releasing the
desire to dwell in any state or mode, nor even to attempt to shift my
center of gravity to a "higher" one through practice.
And thus, I start to sound very much like a Zen-head " -- Jackson

Three cheers for Zen-heads everywhere!

It's my current pet theory that that is where a person fetches up when they've exhausted their spiritual ambition; curiosity abides, but 'abides nowhere' [in particular: everywhere/nowhere, center and circumference]

the idle wastrel

@ Chris r.e. jhannas: yes, OK, that does make more sense. I guess the thing I don't have much experience with is jhanna minus impermanence/insubstantiality, maybe you could say I've tended to the dry insight side of things, at least pre-path. The only experiences I've had of jhannic-like states that were very stable and solid seeming was right after SE. For several weeks I non-verbally but very comfortably believed I was the spacious awareness "around" experience, like a halo or mist of conscious space around experiences. It felt very lofty until I realized what was going on

@ Jackson:
you wrote:
"The only issue I
have with thinking of a "baseline awareness" is that it may lead to an
arranging of states of consciousness topographically. For some reason
that is something I'm wishing to avoid. I think it may be that
experience itself always has the quality of wakefulness, and that any
mode, perspective, or state is a temporary configuration of impermanence
in action. It's a subtle difference, and it may or may not be true."

And I think I see where you're headed with this more clearly now. Yes, I think I am inclined to see things similarly, although I wouldn't say this excludes what Chris was saying to which you were responding above. I think there are (at least) two possible misunderstandings or subtle traps to watch out for in this area.

On the one hand, a facile equivalence of samsara and nirvana, in which the practical differences between the "two" modes (in terms of suffering generated for oneself and others) are effaced . So to avoid this extreme, we need to recognize that functionally there is a big difference between them, and important milestones in the process of un-learning the samsaric habits of suffering. Perhaps this is more of a problem of advanced meditators, who have learned and un-learned so much through simply being with their experience as it unfolds and seeing the empty impermanence of all states.

But on the other hand, there is a rigid dualism between samsara and nirvana which can invite a sort of meta-samsaric loop in which we judge samsaric movements and experience great aversion to samsara and great attachment to nirvana-- i.e., we just create a samsaric reactivity directed at samsaric reactivity. I think this is the sort of error that can block someone from effectively entering the path, by trapping a beginner in a sort of futilely moralistic pseudo-dharmic ego, constantly judging experience and behavior as "buddhist" or "not buddhist".

Just some thoughts there, I need to consider this more deeply and figure out how to articulate it in a more inclusive and smooth way, on its own thread.

As to development of the default mode, I would roll out the six-senses model of experience. While the five physical senses are pretty stable throughout development, we could look at the development traced by Western Psychology as taking place in the sixth sense. The typical formations arising therein could be seen in terms of sensory-motor, pre-operational, concrete-operational, formal-operational, systemic-operational, and unitive for example. These formations arising in the mental-emotional sense sphere are the meanings we learn to attribute to experiences. They are conditioned by physiological development of neural potentials for "hosting" certain kinds of formations, and by socio-cultural inputs determining first whether development happens at all (vis a vis feral children for ex) and then what contents colonize those formation-types. A third factor conditioning these formations is personal choice, inclination, and so on.

Default identifications then develop through predictable sequences (waves) starting at proto-personal instinctual ones, moving into more and more autobiographical ones, then post-conventional personal ones, then unitive ones. So one comes to practice with a unique developmental profile, keeping in mind that there is no solid, integrated "personality" but rather dominant, subdominant, overt and covert sub-personalities representing this unique profile and emerging in different contexts-- so the default mode is contextual as well as developmental. This is of course a simplified scheme for theoretical purposes. Does it make sense?

[...] I think I see where you're headed with this more clearly now. Yes, I think I am inclined to see things similarly, although I wouldn't say this excludes what Chris was saying to which you were responding above. I think there are (at least) two possible misunderstandings or subtle traps to watch out for in this area.

-jake

I agree that what I said does not exclude what Chris was saying. I hope it didn't appear as though I was putting words in his mouth. I'm prone to compulsive clarification, even when it isn't really necessary. I appreciate that the folks here are patient with me

On the one hand, a facile equivalence of samsara and nirvana, in which the practical differences between the "two" modes (in terms of suffering generated for oneself and others) are effaced . So to avoid this extreme, we need to recognize that functionally there is a big difference between them, and important milestones in the process of un-learning the samsaric habits of suffering. Perhaps this is more of a problem of advanced meditators, who have learned and un-learned so much through simply being with their experience as it unfolds and seeing the empty impermanence of all states.

But on the other hand, there is a rigid dualism between samsara and nirvana which can invite a sort of meta-samsaric loop in which we judge samsaric movements and experience great aversion to samsara and great attachment to nirvana-- i.e., we just create a samsaric reactivity directed at samsaric reactivity. I think this is the sort of error that can block someone from effectively entering the path, by trapping a beginner in a sort of futilely moralistic pseudo-dharmic ego, constantly judging experience and behavior as "buddhist" or "not buddhist".

-jake

It sounds like the two subtle traps you're riffing on here have something to do with the possible complacency of the advanced yogi, and the possible hypervigilance of the novice. Of course, I think that one can fall into both complacency or hypervigilance regardless of their level of skill, but I think you're correct in your formulation of how this can potentially play out in these specific scenarios.

As to development of the default mode, I would roll out the six-senses model of experience. [...] So one comes to practice with a unique developmental profile, keeping in mind that there is no solid, integrated "personality" but rather dominant, subdominant, overt and covert sub-personalities representing this unique profile and emerging in different contexts-- so the default mode is contextual as well as developmental. This is of course a simplified scheme for theoretical purposes. Does it make sense?

-jake

Yes, I think it makes sense, particularly your stating that one's current default mode of experiencing is "contextual as well as developmental." However, from my point of view, one's context encompasses stages of development. So, I think you had something more specific in mind by "contextual" than what I can gather by your post. Care to elaborate?

Considering intrapersonal developmental stages as "context" would probably result in my getting some glares from the integral folks. It is a rather monistic way of looking at things, if applied in a reductionist way, which is not my intention. That is one of the sandboxes I prefer to play in, though.

By "contextual" I just meant that "the" default mode is an abstraction, in other words, we have a sort of profile of default modes which emerge in different contexts (different external situations). Think of how "you" "are" at work, in different classes, on different forums, at home, with your parents. And based on one's unique experiences while undergoing the universal stages of development, one will likely manifest sub-personalities of different developmental depth in different (external) contexts. make better sense?

But it could also be said that developmental structures are a context for identification processes, since without a certain level of development, a certain corresponding kind of identification process couldn't occur. In that sense I think your use of "context" is actually referring to a way of viewing things that is well accepted in the integral context, Jackson, even if you are using words slightly differently You cheeky heretic you

Jake, thanks for the clarification. And, yes! Modes of identification and states of consciousness in general are indeed contextually controlled. (Or, perhaps, affected by context. Some people think "controlled" sounds to deterministic.)

So then, modes of conscious participation with one's internal and external environment (i.e. context) are influenced by one's developmental status; which is "developed" within certain contexts; which are in turn influenced by behaviors which are to some degree controlled by one's development; and so on. Wowza. What a neat little web we find ourselves in. It's a relief to know there's really know "me" in any of it. If there were, I suppose this would all prove to be quite maddening